TMFS vs. VTWG
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and VTWG (Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFS is actively managed, while VTWG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.87%/yr vs 5.29%/yr for VTWG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for VTWG.
Performance
TMFS vs. VTWG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a 0.39% return, which is significantly lower than VTWG's 20.43% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- 0.07%
- 1M
- 2.03%
- YTD
- 0.39%
- 6M
- -3.63%
- 1Y
- 0.91%
- 3Y*
- 8.09%
- 5Y*
- -1.87%
- 10Y*
- —
VTWG
- 1D
- -1.45%
- 1M
- 4.36%
- YTD
- 20.43%
- 6M
- 16.97%
- 1Y
- 40.10%
- 3Y*
- 19.34%
- 5Y*
- 5.29%
- 10Y*
- 12.12%
TMFS vs. VTWG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.39% | -1.59% | 15.41% | 25.40% | -33.15% | -2.38% | 58.52% | 40.19% | -6.14% |
VTWG Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF | 20.43% | 13.07% | 15.15% | 18.90% | -26.49% | 2.84% | 34.72% | 28.75% | -7.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and VTWG is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2018 | 0.89 |
The correlation between TMFS and VTWG shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (1 year) to 0.89 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
TMFS vs. VTWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMFS
VTWG
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Real Estate
Energy
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
-
Utilities
-
Technology
TMFS
VTWG
Industrials
TMFS
VTWG
Healthcare
TMFS
VTWG
Financial Services
TMFS
VTWG
Consumer Cyclical
TMFS
VTWG
Real Estate
TMFS
VTWG
Energy
TMFS
VTWG
Basic Materials
TMFS
VTWG
Consumer Defensive
TMFS
VTWG
Communication Services
TMFS
-
VTWG
Utilities
TMFS
-
VTWG
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
TMFS vs. VTWG — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
VTWG
TMFS vs. VTWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| TMFS | VTWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.76 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.02 | 1.30 | -0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.06 | 2.71 | -2.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.16 | 9.72 | -9.56 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. VTWG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than VTWG's maximum drawdown of -42.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and VTWG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | VTWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -42.07% | -6.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | -14.88% | -0.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | -28.58% | +1.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | -40.49% | -5.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.07% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.66% | -1.45% | -17.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -10.50% | -8.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.89% | 4.14% | +1.75% |
Volatility
TMFS vs. VTWG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) is 5.67%, while Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that TMFS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VTWG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | VTWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.67% | 7.82% | -2.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.28% | 16.92% | -2.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.01% | 22.34% | -2.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.01% | 24.67% | -1.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.50% | 24.27% | +1.23% |
TMFS vs. VTWG - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than VTWG's 0.06% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. VTWG - Dividend Comparison
TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VTWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
VTWG Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF | 0.59% | 0.64% | 0.55% | 0.79% | 0.71% | 0.54% | 0.48% | 0.72% | 0.72% | 0.64% | 0.96% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and VTWG have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
VTWG has higher volatility (7.82%) compared to TMFS (5.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs VTWG's -42.07%.
On 5-year performance, VTWG leads with 5.29% vs -1.87% for TMFS. On fees, VTWG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, TMFS has been the lower-risk option at 5.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, VTWG has performed better with a 5.29% return vs -1.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VTWG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.
VTWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.
They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.06% for VTWG.
VTWG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 0.05), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for TMFS and VTWG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer